“Thus, SB277, while requiring that school children be vaccinated, explicitly provides an exception when a physician believes that circumstances-in the judgement and sound discretion of the physician-so warrants”.

VLA Comment: I take this as saying that it is California “law” that the Dept of Health cannot counter a physicians judgement.

More comment: This model legislation will will proliferate nationally. Next State legislative session will be overwhelming, especially, New York and Iowa.

Folks Religious Freedom laws are now center stage…opening the gates for our legal teams. Take this for example:http://www.ijreview.com/2015/06/355349-did-the-gay-marriage-ruling-just-leg… This article has a few attorneys weighing in. The article addressed gun permits. But the arguments, it appears to me, would also apply to the vaccine issue. AND have you noticed that there is now lots of talk about “religious” freedom that even clerks who issue permits feel they can deny issue a permit because of their own religious beliefs. What about the nurses who lose their jobs. However, I digress. Here is an excerpt:

2. In the majority decision, the judges argue that “certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy” are now protected by Due Process:

This is not just an argument for religious waivers as in the language “personal identity and beliefs” but it could be argued that it is certainly offensive to parents individual dignity that the state should allow underaged children to get vaccines without the parents’ knowledge. And that the state and judges have the authority to force medical treatments on children against the parents’ deeply considered decisions regarding the health of their children. In this the state implies that parents make choices to harm their children. This is an effrontery to individual dignity and autonomy.